> Music industry already dumped DRM for good.
This is the part that really gets to me. The music industry is still largely dominated by the sort of companies that also dominate video, and music files are vastly easier to trade around due to their siz, and yet DRM in music is nearly completely nonexistent these days. The only difference, as far as I can tell, is that these same companies just think they can continue to get away with it for video.
Really the proper course of action is to give them reason to reconsider that.
Music is cheap to make and people tend to listen many times over, making the try-it-and-purchase-it model a genuine possibility that video doesn't really have.
For example games are hard to produce (and it usually takes a long time). Still you can get very good games DRM free, because in gaming the faults of DRM are especially apparent.
The downside of DRM - it insults paying customers, it lowers the usability of the content (restricting it to selected devices / players etc.), it also doesn't affect pirates, since the moment that DRM is broken by some skillful crackers - DRM free copies are widely distributed.
So let's see - no one benefits from DRM. Who is in downside? Paying users. So what is the point in using it anywhere?
Someone should make a good service (site?) which will list DRM free distributors for various media where DRM is still present in general.
Companies of the RIAA/MPAA style don't operate with common sense and pure logic. Practice demonstrated it multiple times. They are driven by random impulses like paranoia, lust for control and so on. So don't expect them to give you a logical answer why they don't use DRM in music, but use it in video.
So if you care, buy DVDs and ignore DRM afflicted distribution channels.
The problem with Netflix is not just in them using DRM, but in them actively proliferating it, up to pushing to build it into HTML standard. While the general trend goes in the right direction, Netflix pushes into the wrong one.